Chewy Gomez, KMEL, and the evil empire (Clear Channel)

My Thoughts on Chuy Gomez and KMEL

Gomez at the Fruitvale Station premiere

Rapper E-A-Ski once said in reference to KMEL... "I've had cats that just really want to say, 'If they ain't gon' support us, then why are we supporting them? Don't let them come out to the streets and the clubs." -HE SAID THIS IN 2003.* 


But, KMEL remains one of the most popular stations in the 4th largest market in the country. Despite the fact that they ceased being the "people's station" in the late 90's, and yet... "the people" keep listening. 


Recently, with the abrupt firing of Chuy Gomez, the Twitters, the street, the hood, are all collectively upset about the Bay Area icon being let go after 20 years on air, but simultaneously I promise you that there's also whispers of... "My boy Q gonna come up tho."  Or, "I'm gonna txt Sana right now and make sure she knows we still cool."


Bottom line is this: if you really care about the Bay Area community and hip-hop music, you would never support KMEL (Clear Channel). Since about 99, the station has systematically disenfranchised local artists, and helped to destroy the local music scene. Meanwhile, for a decade+ the average KMEL listener has been stuck with mostly tired, bland, homogenous playlists of the same 7 songs that they play nationwide on all their other "hip-hop and r&b" stations (thanks to ‪#‎payola‬ and politics).

RATM album cover

But (if you care to know), its actually much deeper than that. KMEL isn't just a crappy mainstream "urban" rap station. If we look into the complexity of it all, the station is actually owned by a group of right-wing evangelical conservatives from Texas  that were instrumental in supporting the Bush administrations quest for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They even banned songs nationwide by artists such as Rage Against the Machine, Public Enemy, the Dixie Chicks, and even John Lennon's "Imagine" in the lead up to these wars on their now infamous "blacklist." (editorial note: Clear Channel is controlled by Bain capital, and its failing finances are putting a squeeze on CC & KMEL as described here by Davey-D)

Boots Riley and Davey-D

How is it possible to ban classic songs nationwide? Well, in 1996, Bill Clinton, enabled the Telecommunications Act to pass (one of his many big failures in office), with this passing Clear Channel was able to gobble up almost all of the mainstream radio stations nationwide, thus controlling all the markets. A complete monopoly of how Americans would be able to listen to the radio and get information. They then dumbed it all down in order to boost their bottom line for share holders. But, it didn't stop their of course with conservative agendas creeping into every nook and cranny. Even at good 'ol KMEL. See: the firing of Bay Area radio legend Dave 'Davey D' Cook from the station in 2001 after 9/11 when he had Rep. Barbara Lee and Boots Riley of the Coup on his show to talk about the Bush administrations aspirations for war in the middle east. 


When we look at the station supposedly representing the people here in the Bay, from a "hip-hop" perspective, a youth outlook, and from a black and brown vantage point, we begin to see what KMEL and Clear Channel is all about. We begin to see (and hear) that they do not truly support local music, and certainly do not support any progressive, or conscious rap music on the air. We can claim that the audience does not want more diverse playlists because they keep listening but this is misguided. 


As a youngster when I first listened to KMEL (or KYLD), I was able to get a variety of rap sounds that spoke to many national and local issues of social inequity and injustice (Ghetto Bastard), as well as fun party jams (OPP). Today, kids grow up on those same 7 songs that proclaim "I'm different," when really its just more of the same mindless, blackface rap music. We can indeed blame rappers for putting out this homogenous, often ignorant and shallow content (I am definitely all for calling them out), but its bigger than these mainstream fish. Who is ultimately controlling the dam and polluting the water? That is the major labels, that is Clear Channel. 


Luckily, with the way music is now hosted and shared on the internet, mainstream radio is much less relevant than it once was, but it is still highly influential. This is especially true with young people, and communities of color, where folks don't always have the ease of access to the internet that many of us take for granted. Unfortunately, not everyone takes public transit or Uber's to work, or can walk, like us lucky (spoiled, #blessed) people here in San Francisco, where most people don't really listen to the radio anymore. 

Rush Limbaugh

So, just as we should not assume that radio is no longer highly influential, we also should not underestimate their political power. Clear Channel not only dominates rap radio channels, they also control the news market on rightwing political talk radio that spreads bigoted hate on the air daily with the Rush Limbaugh types (although Limbaugh has cost Clear Channel millions of dollars in sponsorships lately with sponsors dropping like flies due to his consistently hateful speech against women, gays, and people of color). 


(Long F-ing story short) I guess what I'm trying to say is that while things have gotten better lately with the internet expanding our ability to gain access to music and information, we've still got a really long way to go when one company owns most all the stations and controls what we all hear on the radio nationwide. So, if you're pissed about Chuy getting fired, step it up and DON'T LISTEN TO THE STATION ANYMORE. I'd encourage you to go even further and write them and tell them that you are no longer going to listen and WHY. Let Clear Channel know how you feel. 


Contacts -- http://www.kmel.com/pages/CONTACTUS.html

KMEL program director
donparker@clearchannel.com
KMEL asst program director
kenardkarter@clearchannel.com

[note: at the end of the day as long as vulture corporations like Clear Channel, or even worse, Bain capital, continue to control our nations airwaves and finances, we are in deep, deep, trouble. If we want changes, it starts with awareness, behavior, and participation. If you are not happy about something, speak on it publicly. Talk to friends, family, etc. Write a letter to congress, get active, get involved, get organized.]

Looking Beyond The BART Strike: Questions For Bay Area People

BART question(s) for Bay Area people:

1). Would you pay more for "express" service? 

2). Would you be more likely to take BART during commuter hours if it was cheaper? Or, would you ride BART during commuter hours regardless, even if they raised fees (within reason)? 

3). Would you utilize BART, possibly at an increased fee, to be able to ride it between midnight and 6am (start with weekends to accommodate for track maintenance on weekdays), as a fully functional 24 hour transit system? -Thus greatly decreasing the possibility of Drunk Driving accidents and deaths, simultaneously stimulating nightlife/business/culture/community for the entire Bay.

Because looking at BART beyond the threat of strike, the system actually has the 3rd highest "FareBox Recovery" in the nation at above 60%. That means BART covers 60% of the costs of operations via its fares/fees we pay to ride BART. Most of the rest of the money is recovered thru taxes and subsidy (and I'm assuming a bit of advertisement). This relatively high national FBR is all occurring with limited service offerings, over a very widespread map. 

(crowded nyc subway)

Not surprisingly, NYC has the highest FBR in the country (over 70%), and this is of course due to a couple things we don't have here in the Bay Area. NYC's denser population, and close proximity of neighborhoods allows for a much greater efficiency (closer stops, less cars, more riders per capita) and so NYC subway is also able to also charge less. Win, win, win (Imagine if San Francisco had a subway system. No more parking tickets!). 

Well, we obviously can't shrink the Bay Area and make it more densely populated like NYC (perhaps if we got rid of the water but prob not a good idea), but couldn't we encourage more people to ride BART? Currently, only about 05% of the Bay Area's 7.2 million population rides BART on a daily basis, and during the weekend its about 2% (or less) of the overall population. Of course this includes areas that are not currently serviced by BART, however it seems to me that we've still got to be able to increase these numbers with some sensible adjustments and cutting-edge creativity. Although 375,000 people ride BART on average (mon-fri), the Bay, not entirely unlike LA remains very car centric. And while BART is fairly efficient it could be much more efficient, and much more enticing.

In regards to efficiency and enticement, BART could offer services that have different rates/pricing depending on the day/time. I'm not entirely certain how this would look but people are willing to pay more for convenience and necessity. For example, folks in SF pay "peak" prices for uber cabs. I'm not saying BART should spike prices during commutes (perhaps the opposite would make sense?), but maybe prices are raised slightly for express services, major sporting events and concerts, and services after midnight (at least on weekends) when people want to enter or leave major cities such as SF, Oakland, or San Jose. Wouldn't you pay a few more bucks to jump on express train? Or, avoid a DUI? 

(the Key System - before BART)

Moreover, how does BART not have "express" trains? BART claims they do not currently have the track space to accommodate express trains and maintain sufficient ridership for the non-commuters who need more frequent stops. However, during commute hours the large majority of people riding do not need frequent stops but rather access to main hubs. BART literally only started officially "looking into" the idea of express service in 2012 but yet has been around since 1972. (Note: Way back in the day, well before BART, the Bay Area was serviced by an amazingly cheap, clean, and efficient electronic transit rail called the Key system, which ultimately became a victim of the automobile industry and the nations obsession with cars)   

So, to me, the biggest problem with BART is not the employees salaries (avg. employee makes $80,000 with overtime, which mean many make much less than that. 80k is a very good wage but as you've probably noticed, the Bay is expensive!)… The bigger issue is the lack of leadership of the BART board over the years and it's inability to innovate and elevate the Bay Area in terms of transit when compared to other major metropolitan regions of the world. The fact that BART's Fare Box Recovery is the 3rd highest in the country is impressive at first glance but it's not so much the boards doing and much more to do with two basic factors. 

#1. Bart is kinda pricey and people are forced to pay these high fares that contribute to the FBR. 

#2. A healthy chunk of the people who live in the Bay are solely dependent upon BART for their commute, and many of us "Bay-Areans" in general are savvy enough to want to ride instead of drive.

(Tokyo transit agents pushing riders into train)

Indeed it's definitely not the worst system in the world but it could be much better, and smarter. Just because NYC and Paris metro (for example) have the advantage of denser/closer proximity, that doesn't mean BART should settle for the basics. While the Bay will never be like places such as Hong Kong or Tokyo, who have transit systems with over 100% FBR, we also don't desire to be so densely packed in like rats in a cage. That being said, I'd still like to be able to go to see a show at the FOX theater in Oakland or the New Parish and not have to scurry to catch the last BART before I'm stranded without a ride and forced to hail a $90 taxi. I'm sure a ton of folks living in the greater Bay Area would love to travel into the city at night if they didn't always have to drive, or find a place to stay. This would also make night ridership more safe, as more people that ride after 10pm would discourage criminal activity. BART would also be able to hire more transit police to work these later hours (hopefully the kind that are properly trained, and not quick on the trigger as we have tragically seen in the past). 

All of this musing comes as BART employees are about to go on strike again, with their main grievances being that they want safer work environment (less naked-guy ninjas), as well as not having to pay into their pension, or increases in health care costs. It might sound sort of crazy that BART employees don't currently pay into their pension but again, this was negotiated previously by the illustrious BART board and employees would argue they made other concessions. I'd also offer that anyone who pays into a pension currently and says they wouldn't rather have a deal that allows them to not pay, is probably fibbing. There is definitely a happy "extra medium" that both sides can agree upon. 

Overall though I think if we have any major issues with BART, it should be with the boards lack of leadership, and the services less than optimal Metropolitan offerings. Furthermore, if we are going to get upset with income inequality in America, aiming at BART employees who average 80k per year in one of the most expensive places to live in the world, is probably not the best place to start. We might want to first take a look at money in politics beyond "corporate personhood,"  including the revolving door in DC, and the "too big to fail" giants on Wall Street.